Unity blocked by windows 10

When i launch game in some pcs i get a message from windows like a blue box saying the application is not trusted or something like that. I need to accept the application to make it run, i have heard you need a windows certification to make it trusted, someone knows how it works and where to buy it?

 

That's a good point, my buddy mentioned that as well. It wasn't blocked, but said it wasn't a trusted application.

 

https://www.quora.com/Windows-10-Th...er-Not-trusted-How-can-I-run-this-file-in-W10

 

This is a lame attempt to improve Windows security that was actually introduced in Windows 8. In Win10 it is called SmartScreen. As posted above you can get around it on individual computers, but to get your application past that warning in general you have to apply code-signing which involves spending a few hundred dollars on an EV certificate. What happens is Microsoft collects SmartScreen telemetry (they call this "Application Reputation") and if enough people allow the app to run then eventually SmartScreen stops blocking it.

Extended Validation (EV) certs are pretty expensive at nearly $300 per year (and they don't really mean crap in terms of real-world security).

https://www.digicert.com/ev-price-comparison.htm

https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/ie...nded-validation-ev-code-signing-certificates/

 

Thanks for the info mv10, and what is the process to integrate in the game? Why so much price difference between Symantec and the other 2?

 

Because 99% of Symantec's business comes from giant corporations that install their crappy antivirus on thousands of desktops and their pricing in general is disconnected from reality. In my opinion, of course.

Signing an EXE or MSI installer is accomplished with a command-line tool:

https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa388170(v=vs.85).aspx

 

Solution: Uninstall Windows 10

 

Not really practical. Customers will run whatever they feel like, and are unlikely to change OS just to run one game.

 

Tried to do that with my new laptop bought in December but it won't let me. Seems some hardware is specifically designed to work only with Windows 10. I've since gotten over it and don't hate Win 10.

 

I'm guessing thats Secure boot's fault.

 

Yes, or more accurately alternative OSes are locked out. It's simply another step in the direction of a walled garden.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2901...-boot-screws-where-does-that-leave-linux.html

 

I feel like something like this shouldn't be allowed.

Like, it would be one thing if Microsoft was like Apple and manufactured the hardware that you use Windows on, but they instead are just like "Is it a computer? Yes? Then we own it."

That just seems insane to me.

 

Oh, it pissed me off royally. I'm a frikin adult! If I want to strip the OS off my laptop and replace it with an older, more stable one, I should be allowed to.

But I got over it.

 

I suddenly feel the urge to submit a particularly nasty piece of malware just to point out the ridiculousness.

 

Who do you propose would enforce a rule that it isn't allowed? It is slimy, but is it against the law?

 

How many laws take into account the state of modern computer technology?

 

I really didn't make my thoughts clear.
There probably isn't a state of the art law that deals with the case.
But under what legal principle could it be argued that it ought to be legally prevented?
You can't just say "I want this company to change their practice, and therefore make less money, in order to satisfy my demands."
Is there theft going on? Or fraud?
Maybe it could be considered an antitrust issue.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law

I'd say taking like 90% of all computers and locking them down into one operating system could definitely be considered monopolistic. They're trying to make it impossible for anyone to compete with them. If thats not considered unfair business practice, I don't know what is.

 

Right, that's why I mentioned laws. The situation is very similar to that of jailbreaking a phone. You've purchased a physical device and as the owner you should have the rights to use it as you want. Whether the manufacturer or carrier continues to provide warranties or services is another matter but that shouldn't impact your rights to the device you own.

 

My 11 year old son is begging me to uninstall win 10 on his machine and put win 7 back on it. Reason? W
He wants to be able to play battlefield 1942 again, which refuses to run on 10.

 

Some people supposedly got it working through the steps mentioned here.

http://answers.ea.com/t5/Battlefiel...ws-10-64-Bit-System-Won-t-launch/td-p/4708890

 

I'm surprised the EU hasn't had something to say about it since they took internet explorer to task for being anti competitive early this century. I guess they must be to busy with the Brexit to have noticed.

 

This malarkey started long before Brexit was a thing

 

Sounds like a suspicious scheme by microsoft to rip people off more subscription money for certificates.

 

I thought so too, but the certificates are provided by 3rd parties. I wonder if there are cheaper providers than the ones mentioned.

http://webmasters.stackexchange.com...ation-so-much-cheaper-than-digicert-thawte-an

 

That's where that "reputation" thing kicks in. The first time it gets flagged as malware, signed or not, it's permanently blocked everywhere.

And before the fanboys get out their anti-Microsoft pitchforks, everybody does this. Linux can require signed code, and you can't publish anything to iTunes without signing it. In fact, last time I checked (about a year ago), iOS signing still requires you to own a Mac since their licenses make it illegal to run those parts of their toolchain on another OS (can we burn somebody else at the stake yet?).

Code-signing was Sun's idea for Java Applets around the end of the 90s and back then the certificates were magnificently expensive. Thawte had the gall to advertise that they had "high quality" certificates, which is meaningless.

Granted, it's a hassle now that they're forcing it on but it's hardly some secret Microsoft extortion scheme.

They actually aren't a bad idea. If anything I'm pissed at the certificate vendors for what they charge for these things. It's an auto-generated encrypted file. They should be like ten bucks. I have read that GoDaddy has the cheapest. At $170 per year it's still obscene relative to what they're producing (and that's the first-time price, renewals are full price at $200).

https://www.godaddy.com/web-security/code-signing-certificate

If anybody does this be sure to use the timestamp option, otherwise your signed code expires when your certificate expires. Also look up "makecert" which lets you make test certificates without buying a real certificate (you'll have to register a local Cert Authority file on the test machines so the test boxes can recognize the test certs).

 

Yeah, I wondered about that. Maybe people love Apple too much to sue them? Whereas Microsoft is so easy to hate.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/apple/...-for-anticompetiveness-but-apple-gets-a-pass/

Turns out Apple was't popular enough in the PC and mobile markets! (As of that article's date, 2012)

I found a website for free SSL domain-validated certificates: https://letsencrypt.org/

But not extended ones, because the process cannot be automated. You pay for the required human effort: https://community.letsencrypt.org/t/plans-for-extended-validation/409/.

Cheapest ones I found are Comodo: http://webdesign.about.com/od/ssl/tp/cheapest-ev-ssl-certificates.htm

 

If you charge too little for them the malware creators will just purchase them. It's a bit like World of Warcraft and the gold spammers. Outside of those who steal accounts the gold spammers are known for purchasing and subscribing to WoW because the relatively cheap cost is more than made up for by their sales.

 

Well here's the thing, if I understand that article correctly, it's still Microsoft who has to approve the certificates, like I think it said in the article Microsoft signed Canonical's certificate for Ubuntu.

One way or another, you have to go through microsoft to get permission to be an operating system it seems like

 

$300 isn't exactly a barrier if you're (for example) stealing credit card information or running malware for other such purposes. Which is why I said earlier that it's a crappy security model. Code-signing has benefits but claiming it's any protection against malware is not (legitmately) one of them.

 

About one paragraph later:

"the Linux Foundation Secure Boot System is a generic loader signed by Microsoft that should allow any Linux system to boot on PCs with Secure Boot enabled."

And once it's signed, it's good forever. So no, not really.

 

Use of the word "should" worries me. I'd rather have seen a statement that it was proven.

 

The fact that Microsoft had to sign it at all to make it work is the problem. They are acting like anything that isn't made by Apple belongs to them and everyone has to get the OK from them to distribute an OS that isn't Windows. Thats too much control.

Yeah, the way it was all phrased worried me, like it only applied to big distros like Ubuntu and Redhat/Fedora, so smaller distros wouldn't be able to get signed

 

Windows 10 has reported that my SaveGame file is malicious. It was created using the C# binary formatter for the game.
It contained two float values, but yet somehow it could be virus according to the Windows Defender.

 

Windows Defender is stupid; it will say so until you tell it otherwise. There must be a way to report "false positives".

 

I managed to do that with my MSI GX60, that came with W8, but I had to go into the boot menu and change something I don't remember the name of, sorry, from UEFI to LEGACY. After that, I've been able to install W7. For good measure, I reinstalled W8 on a separate partition and migrated to W10, but I never use it.

 

I don't disagree, but (a) your original comment was incorrect, and (b) I gave up on OS wars while everybody still used dial-up. Just. Don't. Care.

 

It's not a question of any sort of OS war, it's a question of fair competition in a capitalist market.

If Microsoft can pretty much decide who is allowed to compete with them by being the one who signs the certificates, thats extremely unfair.That means they pretty much lock down any chance of any future competition to just Windows, Apple, and Linux, that means someone else can't come along and say "I want to make my own OS" the way Bill Gates and the Steves and Linus Torvalds did.

Even if you like what OS you're on now, thats bad for you. A company with no real competition can get away with whatever it wants, and has no insentive to make decisions based on the needs of their customers.

 

Do you ever go into a thread and not preach about Linux?

 

All the time.

Besides, this isn't about Linux. Personally, I'd love to see someone start their own OS that wasn't based on the Linux kernal or anything related to it, if it helps breed a competitive market.

A monopolized market for anything, whether it be railroads, broadband internet, cars, textiles, breakfast cereals, whatever, is going to be bad for the consumers of those products. That's Economics 101.

Hell, I wish Apple was a better competitor just to keep the market in check.

 

BTW I'm always working with ressource monitor on, even though I'm not an expert, on win7. NOw I'm having nagging screen to update to win10 and my computer slow down even with resource free. I currently can't watch youtube video because they seems to artificially lag and everything is slowdown ... I do not wish continue with windows at all

 

https://www.grc.com/never10.htm

That should stop the popups

 

I once started my own OS (desktop) but only got as far as formatting a disk with my own disk structure. I've written many embedded OS's in the past so know it's not really that difficult so I'm surprised there aren't many more OS's out there.

 

I'm not so surprised, it's one of those things that isn't too hard to grasp but is really hard to actualize with any degree of worthwhile quality.

Around '95 one of my employees and I started writing a highly modularized, object oriented OS in our spare time. He used to write video drivers and I was a low-level DMA guy, so we made pretty good progress. The file system was more like a giant object-based relational database (in the early 90s I wrote database indexing software), we completed a windowing API, and basic TCP/IP worked. We didn't like the Unix underpinnings of NeXTstep, so that was our primary motivation, but as hobbies go, it's the sort of thing nobody will ever finish on their own. Open source barely existed as a concept, and we realized we lacked too much solid experience in too many important areas like security to turn it into anything useful.

Plus my employee/friend was literally insane and in '96 "they" took him away... lol. Strange times.

 

Thats pretty awesome.

Hot damn....That is interesting. I feel like half the people who post here could write a book about their lives

Perhaps "They" thought you guys were on to something. I mean, after all, being insane is part of the job description of being a developer. I mean Steve Jobs was pretty crazy, and they let him run Apple. Him being insane is half the reason the stuff he pulled worked so well.

 

https://unity3d.com/get-unity/download/archive helped many by selecting specific parameters of how you want to download by using the download assistant. If that doesn't do it, many also said to try these steps to get around Microsoft this way:

The solution for me was to add a system override for Mandatory ASLR, as the unity installer won't work with it.

• Go to "Windows Security"
• App & browser control
• Exploit protection settings
• Program settings
• Add program to customise, choose the unity download assistant, e.g. UnityDownloadAssistant-2019.2.12f1.exe
• Find "Force randomisation for images (Mandatory ASLR)"
• Click override system settings, then turn the slider off
• Click apply
• Repeat this process for UnitySetup64.exe as well, because that also needs an exception.

**Personally my experience was a bit different. I had editor but couldn't figure out why the hub wouldn't install. Come to find when once uninstalled it remained in my programs list! Just went into it, tried to uninstall again, it said it didn't exist and asked if I'd like to remove which I agreed and poof, installed with no problems.Big DUH for me ugh!!!

Hope it helps!